I write in response to the comments by Dannie Dinh, public relations officer of Baylor Democrats, concerning Texas Senate Bill 16.
The bill in question requires that every woman who elects to have an abortion in Texas will have the option to see a sonogram of her baby before the procedure is performed.
Ms. Dinh is opposed to the bill because she says it is expanding state control over women’s privacy.
She says that requiring abortion facilities to show a woman the sonogram of her baby is “an intrusion between the doctor-patient relationship.” However, I fail to see the grounds for Ms. Dinh’s objection to the bill. How can offering a woman the opportunity to see her baby in a private medical room possibly intrude between the doctor and the patient?
There will be no other people present when the sonogram is shown—it is simply a matter of turning the monitor towards the patient so that she may see the object of the procedure, the part of her that is about to be removed.
This is not about increasing control of government if the woman has the power to opt out of seeing the sonogram. In fact, this is part of the move in medicine towards full disclosure to the patient.
Therefore the claim by Ms. Dinh that S.B. 16 is an intrusion between the doctor-patient relationship and that this is an attempt for the State to assert more control over women’s health are wrong.
I urge all that agree with Ms. Dinh to re-evaluate their stance against the right of women to see a sonogram before having an abortion. It is truly in the best interest of the patient.
Amanda Beck
Lecturer in Spanish
Department of Modern Foreign Language
